If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think there should be a 4th tier but, as you said, very rare. Mayhap two titles: Roman Emperor (for the Byzantines) and Western Emperor (for the HRE) [names obviously not decided upon, just possible suggestions]. The HRE title could be contested by decision with enough prestige and/or piety and high relations with the Pope/low relations with the current HRE. Something similar could be done for the Orthodox countries if/when Constantinople falls. The claims wouldn't be inheritable so that way if a powerful ruler claims to be the real Emperor his pathetic son won't be able to carry on the claim since nobody would back him. However, the actual title itself would be heritable.

I would prefer the option of creating our own by incorporating multiple king titles. Those two empires are already a part of history, and since events change after the start of the game that may be similar or totally different than actual history, it would be nice to have the ability to do it. After you establish your own empire, you determine if it's hereditary or not with the succession laws given in the game. I do agree, it should be rare and hard to do, though.

I agree with those people advocating historical realism. This is an alternate history, yes--but it has no point, no value, unless it's thoroughly grounded in what the time period was like. Like as not, the title Emperor had immense political, cultural, and religious overtones and legitimacy was downright crucial in the period before the divine right of kings.

I always liked how in EU3, the Byzantine Empire was the only country that started with the "Empire" government type. I think in CK2, we should differentiate the notion of a 4th tier (kings who may have other kings as vassals, or multiple kingdoms etc; plausible claims to be greater than other kings) from the notion of Empire, which should be a higher tier altogether.

The only Empires should be the HRE and the true, legitimate Roman Empire, the Βασιλεια των Ρομαιων. In fact, I might even say the Roman Empire (don't call it Byzantium again--Byzantine Empire if you must, but not Byzantium--that's an insult!) should be a unique entity all to itself, and the HRE mechanism separate too.

Those ought to be two unique titles. We can, perhaps, allow others to issue CLAIMs to those titles--say, for an increase in prestige at the cost of damaged relations with all those who scoff at your impertinence, especially the two emperors themselves--but that's different. So we might have pretenders about, but that's different from being the real thing. However, just as a country can inveigle itself into the HRE and get its ruler elected, so might somebody attempt to topple the Eastern Empire, conquer Constantinopolis, and then take the Roman throne for himself (as Mehmed II did).

And then, perhaps, the Byzantines, who might yet hold other provinces than Byzantine, would just have a claim as others do. Or something. I haven't fully thought out how to implement the 4th crusade Nicaea or the post-1453 Trebizond situation.

But the important thing is that the Roman throne, held by the Greek emperors in Constantinopolis, should be a unique and special thing, period, regardless of alternate history--because, DARNIT, it *was*! The alternate history can come in if people want to claim the title for themselves or something, but there should be some way of ensuring that the actual Ρομαιοι have the de jure title.

It can also involve vassal kings, sure, Βασιλευς Βασιλεων Βασιλευων Βασιλευοντων and all that--but translatio imperii has to be a crucial element that distinguishes their claim from anybody else who happens to be an influential king. That *must* be there, because it's important.

I can also see the HRE and various Saracen Caliphates having similar importance in their respective milieus. Certainly legitimacy mattered to those folks too.

CK is a game about titles, not conquering land. And titles had significance. Let's not trivialize this just for the sake of title inflation, which was rampant enough in the 19th century (thanks Napoleon!) As I outlined above, there's already a way to simulate the more or less legitimate counter claims people liked to make--but they were always claims to a *real* imperial title that somebody else held.

Apologies for not accenting my Greek, but medieval Greek is silly anyway and doesn't follow the rules of good Greek (i.e. Attic or older). Like the grammarian said, "Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς." Who can blame Irene for wanting to be called basileus instead of basilissa, indeed!

"Methought I could discern a pretty Democrat à la mode Françoise, and a sweet little Federalist à la mode Angloise." - John Lambert, French visitor to New York during the Jefferson administration.

Bollocks, this game is supposed to provide a historical flavour and experience. Accuracy is what gives it its flavour.

All I was referring to there was what it was called on the map. And its cool to think that in 800 years your conglomeration of kingdoms and duchies will be known as an "empire". It wouldn't affect the actual name of your state (the Kingdom of all these different places).

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

Alternate history is not about making up things, is about taking the patterns you have at a certain date, alter some parameters and imagine or see what's gonna happen. The appearance of a Feudal "Imperial State" with no connection to Rome makes no sense at all.

As you pointed out, at least two different people made claims to be Emperors (or Empresses) in the period without any sort of Roman connection whatsoever. They were ignored, but mostly because they "failed the political test"--they didn't have enough swords, enough domestic support, or enough foreign support (or all three). If the player could create the right conditions, those titles *could* stick to them.

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

This is not true. Historians also speak of the Venetian Empire, and it only contained some isles and coastlands in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also they speak of the Aragonese Empire (but not anymore, it's too pretentious and pointless)...

But it was enormously rich and politically influential (I mean, they destroyed the Byzantine Empire, after all). Iran, in the 20th century, was none of those things, so it wasn't called an empire.

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

In the end, calling some country an "empire" or not is a matter of tradition. In Spanish, the Egyptian Kingdoms (the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, etc) are called "Empires".

Again, Egypt was a large, powerful, wealthy, and populous state during the period in question. Aside from the Aragon example, which I mostly can't deal with simply because I know practically nothing about Aragon, you haven't actually provided any examples of states known as empires which didn't meet some standard of being wealthy, populous, or huge in extent, regardless of their political and organizational sophistication, or what their inhabitants called their rulers.

Originally Posted by Cèsar de Quart

Exactly. I totally support this.

As it happens, so do I. Titles on maps aside, taking the title of Emperor and actually making that stick (as didn't happen in Maud's case) would require quite a lot of work, and that should be reflected in the game.

Aside from the HRE and Byzantines (which seem to most obviously meet the criteria for a 4th tier of some sort), a 4th tier seems appropriate to replace some of the massive eastern king titles (Khazaria and Rus) so that the actual political fragmentation (especially of the latter) could be better represented, and to make the process of gaining the title in the first place more sensible (and also more difficult, as it should be). The idea of making the fourth tier just a greater king (as the Persians would say, a "king of kings") and then making the Imperial title something greater achievable through only grave difficulty and with only two powers (well, three perhaps, including the Seljuks or the Caliphs) starting out with it seems pretty good to me, and would probably take care of everyone's concerns.

No, that would take away all the interest in Imperial Diets and Papal coronations.

Not at all, you could have those strip the title/remove prestige so that it simulates not having received it. That is, if they were to have a 4th tier I am under the impression that it has to be done similarly for both the HRE and Byzantines so either the HRE is heritable or the Roman empire is not so at least one of them would have to be done via decisions/events.

Originally Posted by LordofSaxony

I would prefer the option of creating our own by incorporating multiple king titles. Those two empires are already a part of history, and since events change after the start of the game that may be similar or totally different than actual history, it would be nice to have the ability to do it. After you establish your own empire, you determine if it's hereditary or not with the succession laws given in the game. I do agree, it should be rare and hard to do, though.

I disagree, I don't think you should be able to create your own empires (the only thing similar I advocate is having "$DYNASTY_ADJ$ Empire" appear on the map for overly large realms, but still retaining the title of King/Arch Duke/whatever) but I do think that sufficiently strong rulers should be able to challenge the emperor for his title, with the blessings of the Pope/Patriarch of course.

The idea of making the fourth tier just a greater king (as the Persians would say, a "king of kings") and then making the Imperial title something greater achievable through only grave difficulty and with only two powers (well, three perhaps, including the Seljuks or the Caliphs) starting out with it seems pretty good to me, and would probably take care of everyone's concerns.

Yes, I should think so. I don't think anyone objects to the idea of a 4th tier, but just the notion of granting it the imperial dignity.

"Methought I could discern a pretty Democrat à la mode Françoise, and a sweet little Federalist à la mode Angloise." - John Lambert, French visitor to New York during the Jefferson administration.

@Federalist Girl
I basically agree with most of what you've said, especially about translatio imperii. Still not sure about 4th tier though (see below)

@zachhcaz22
I agree that the title should have an element of heritability to it, this could form an interesting dynamic with the will of the pope and of the Imperial nobility in deciding the next emperor (different events and conditions would lead to any of these gaining importance).

Originally Posted by truth is life

All I was referring to there was what it was called on the map. And its cool to think that in 800 years your conglomeration of kingdoms and duchies will be known as an "empire". It wouldn't affect the actual name of your state (the Kingdom of all these different places).

Fair enough, but I still think having Empires all over the place undermines a key aspect of the medieval period.

Originally Posted by truth is life

As you pointed out, at least two different people made claims to be Emperors (or Empresses) in the period without any sort of Roman connection whatsoever. They were ignored, but mostly because they "failed the political test"--they didn't have enough swords, enough domestic support, or enough foreign support (or all three). If the player could create the right conditions, those titles *could* stick to them.

Actually, Matilda (or Maud if we absolutely have to use the Victorian terminology) claimed to be Empress through her first marriage to Emperor Henry V. It's one of those once I have the title then I can't relinquish it, much like the Queen mother still had the title "Queen" after her husband's (the king's) death. Matilda was NOT claiming that she ruled an Empire, rather she was emphasising her personal dignity and lineage. In the case of the Spanish Emperors I've already suggested that they can be compared to the French kings while the Spanish kings can be compared to French dukes. In Iberia they needed to come up with a title higher than king to justify claiming overlordship over the other kings even though said kings were no more powerful than dukes in other areas of Europe.

Originally Posted by truth is life

As it happens, so do I. Titles on maps aside, taking the title of Emperor and actually making that stick (as didn't happen in Maud's case) would require quite a lot of work, and that should be reflected in the game.

Aside from the HRE and Byzantines (which seem to most obviously meet the criteria for a 4th tier of some sort), a 4th tier seems appropriate to replace some of the massive eastern king titles (Khazaria and Rus) so that the actual political fragmentation (especially of the latter) could be better represented, and to make the process of gaining the title in the first place more sensible (and also more difficult, as it should be). The idea of making the fourth tier just a greater king (as the Persians would say, a "king of kings") and then making the Imperial title something greater achievable through only grave difficulty and with only two powers (well, three perhaps, including the Seljuks or the Caliphs) starting out with it seems pretty good to me, and would probably take care of everyone's concerns.

While I have no problem with a fourth tier, I still don't think that kings should be on anything other than the top tier by default. I think this is one of the major flaws in the tier system: while it is a useful simplification of the feudal system, it makes it very tricky to show nuances within it. You can't show lesser kings being vassalised by stronger kings for example. Perhaps a better way of representing it could be to keep the three tiers but allow vassalisation of those on the same tier (if you're a vassal of someone on your own tier you can only have vassals on tiers lower than your own). I think this may have been floated somewhere else. Being a vassal of someone on your tier should spark a lot of events that would undermine the vassalage to reflect the social difficulties in accepting a supposed equal as your superior (especially if your Lord's prestiege takes a big hit). In this way Russia could be united but with great difficulty.

While I have no problem with a fourth tier, I still don't think that kings should be on anything other than the top tier by default. I think this is one of the major flaws in the tier system: while it is a useful simplification of the feudal system, it makes it very tricky to show nuances within it. You can't show lesser kings being vassalised by stronger kings for example. Perhaps a better way of representing it could be to keep the three tiers but allow vassalisation of those on the same tier (if you're a vassal of someone on your own tier you can only have vassals on tiers lower than your own). I think this may have been floated somewhere else. Being a vassal of someone on your tier should spark a lot of events that would undermine the vassalage to reflect the social difficulties in accepting a supposed equal as your superior (especially if your Lord's prestiege takes a big hit). In this way Russia could be united but with great difficulty.

Well, the default 4th tier title would be king, so...

Besides, as I said only the HRE, Byzantine Empire, and (possibly) the Seljuk Empire or Abbasid Caliphate would start off as 4th tier titles. All the others would have to be created by grabbing a bunch of king titles (and having effective control over the land). So you would still have a fun time of forcing other kings to submit, which if the other Clausewitz games are any indication will be much harder than in CK I.

77

Join Date

Apr 2003

Location

The Netherlands

Posts

29,526

Originally Posted by truth is life

Well, the default 4th tier title would be king, so...

Besides, as I said only the HRE, Byzantine Empire, and (possibly) the Seljuk Empire or Abbasid Caliphate would start off as 4th tier titles. All the others would have to be created by grabbing a bunch of king titles (and having effective control over the land). So you would still have a fun time of forcing other kings to submit, which if the other Clausewitz games are any indication will be much harder than in CK I.

But the Abbasid Caliphate was pratically a 'vassal' of the Seljuks. The Caliph was a puppet in their hands.

I would prefer the option of creating our own by incorporating multiple king titles. Those two empires are already a part of history, and since events change after the start of the game that may be similar or totally different than actual history, it would be nice to have the ability to do it. After you establish your own empire, you determine if it's hereditary or not with the succession laws given in the game. I do agree, it should be rare and hard to do, though.

I concur. I want the historical elements and I want to option of doing my own thing should the fancy strike me.

The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little - Herodotus

But the Abbasid Caliphate was pratically a 'vassal' of the Seljuks. The Caliph was a puppet in their hands.

Yeah, I know. A 1-province 4th tier. I was rather leaning farther towards the Seljuks, if anyone, being a 4th tier title. But the caliphate potentially being high-level would be interesting for the expansion (if they add Muslim countries as playable).

Imperial system?

Now if I have a massive empire and controll Roma, much of Italy, southern France and Iberia is it too far fetched to declare myself the new Roman Empire?

Ok lets say its not. Is 1066 or whichever date they choose to start at (it wasnt much earlier as I recall) too distant from the days of Rome or even Charlemage's empire to be able to re-install an Imperial Buracracy?

I get this game is about feudalism and these what ifs are not really important but I wonder what the general consesus would be.

So if paradox had some extra time to add an extra type of playable government how many would say yea or nay, and for what reasons?

The Byzantines already have an Imperial bureaucracy, so if such an alternate government is gonna be in the game, it would be in from the start.

But yeah, 1066 is too long from the days of the Western Empire; when the Eastern Romans reconquered Italy barely fifty years after Rome fell, the reinstatement of imperial bureaucracy led to revolts (mostly because taxes went up, compared to the barbarian rule).

Also, you should not be able to declare yourself "the new Roman Empire". There's already the legitimate Emperor ruling from Constantinople and a half-legit Emperor in Germany crowned by the Pope. The goal for Western/Catholic rulers who want to be Roman Emperors should be to go for the HRE title.

Given that the first CK is still the single most sand-box game Paradox has made (by a very wide margin), I'm not sure why we should expect the design of the sequel to be different, unless and until they say so. Remember that in the first game it was not uncommon to have the Fatimids invading England or the Mongols in France.

Given that the first CK is still the single most sand-box game Paradox has made (by a very wide margin), I'm not sure why we should expect the design of the sequel to be different, unless and until they say so. Remember that in the first game it was not uncommon to have the Fatimids invading England or the Mongols in France.

It was lovely to see the Poles and the Hungarians fail to defend Eastern Europe. Mongols in Köln or Dijon is a very exciting senario... especially since I was the king of Italy.

**

Also, about a huge Western Roman Empire... well, remember that this game is about Feudalism. It makes little sense to spend two years developing the feudal world, and then spend more time creating a way out of it, so easily as adding a tier.

Anyway, if someone gets to control the Western Roman Empire and declares himself Emperor, chances are he's gonna loose everything very soon, at the first noble revolt or the first incompetent heir. Such is the nature of CK.

The Byzantines already have an Imperial bureaucracy, so if such an alternate government is gonna be in the game, it would be in from the start.

But yeah, 1066 is too long from the days of the Western Empire; when the Eastern Romans reconquered Italy barely fifty years after Rome fell, the reinstatement of imperial bureaucracy led to revolts (mostly because taxes went up, compared to the barbarian rule).

Also, you should not be able to declare yourself "the new Roman Empire". There's already the legitimate Emperor ruling from Constantinople and a half-legit Emperor in Germany crowned by the Pope. The goal for Western/Catholic rulers who want to be Roman Emperors should be to go for the HRE title.

The HRE is the key, I agree, JR. It has a lot of potential but demands patience and perseverance. My ambition starting as either an Iberian or French major (I prefer Provence or Burgundy) was to recreate the empire of Charlemagne (or at least unite Occitania in Spain's case). Then you need to move towards the Holy Roman Empire, do a real political takeover. That done, it might be possible to vassalize or even annex the Papal States and model your administration on the Byzantines, which is what Heinrich IV was in part trying to do in 1066. He got excommunicated twice IRL and between Matilda di Canossa and Rudolf of Swabia the guy didn't stand much of a chance. In CK, we all know how fast Germany falls apart in the 1066 scenario. Good opportunity to swoop in and try for the throne as an outsider.

It was the 14-15th century rediscovery of Roman law that in part propelled Western Christian states towards centralization and bureaucratization, so it might be possible to pull it off a few centuries earlier, if some of the variables are there. So, start as Provence, Burgundy, or Aragon, come to power over your own region, pull off a few good marriages, then reunite Hispania, Italy, France, and Germany (if you can) and then carry out centralizing reforms to consolidate your holdings and stop expanding like it's going out of style. That should eat up a century or two (or three) and enact electoral law so that you can pick the most competent duke of your dynasty to inherit. What is key here are competent rulers and stability. Bit by bit eat away at aristocratic and ecclesiastical privilege. Avoid drastic action or direct confrontations with your magnates or the papacy. Instead, murder, bribe, and above all marry your way into power. It takes longer but there is more to be gained through the royal bedchamber than the battlefield. Embrace cultural heterogeneity (your royal family should be pretty diverse by now) or create a new imperial culture.

Then once you consolidate your holdings(for a 1066 start, it's like 1300 by now), move on to North Africa, the Baltic, or Jerusalem (or all three, you're a wealthy, centralized, disciplined empire by now with 5M manpower). Play to 1399, export to EU3: HTTT. That's my general game plan for CK2 and actually what I'm doing in the excellent EU3 mod "The Dark Years," 900-1399.

I'll just throw my 2 cents completely lacking any connection to the previous few posts. IMHO anyone should be able to claim an imperial title and have the kingdom named an empire even if it's laughable (Trebizond?). Should be the ligitimacy that counts if that's true or not and the effects of the claim

If there was a Fourth Tier , I would rather see it limited to only certain special titles .

The Byzantines would probably be in the Fourth Tier by default , but the Holy Roman Emperor does not . To achieve fourth Tier , a Catholic state probably would have to be King of Italy , have all Iberian and the French Crown at minimum , and must be Holy Roman Emperor.

I wonder whether there's enough justifcation for a Fourth Tier for Orthodox Russians though ? If a Russian principality unites all of Russia , should there be a fourth Tier Tsar?

Furthermore , what about titles like Khagan ? This could be a special Fourth Tier title for any Steepe Pagan who manages to unite the Eurasian Steepes . However , should the Steepe Empire fall apart , the title would be lost .

I believe the Mongols too should be given a Fourth Tier title when they spawn as well : the Khan .

For the Muslims , the obvious choice would be the Caliph . For Flavor purposes , I advocate the Abbasid Caliph to be given Fourth Tier title of Caliph , but the benefits should be given to a " Caliph Controller ", namely the Seljuks. However, when/if the Seljuks collapse , the Caliph will still not regain the full benefits of the Fourth Tier . To truly qualify for Fourth Tier as a Muslim nation , some of the following probably has to be true : Control of Syria , Mesopotamia , Egypt and Persia or Arabia . You must be a descendent of the Quaryash clan . You must have extremely high piety and prestige . If you are direct descendant of Muhammad , the Piety and Prestige requirements would be significantly lower , but still very high. You cannot be a Vassal of anyone . The current Caliph's dynasty must be extinguished , or at the very least , hold a title no higher than Sheik. There cannot be a Caliph controller - or rather , the Caliph controller must not own any territory in Egypt , Syria , Mesopotamia , Persia or Arabia . You must own the Holy Cities of Jerusalem , Mecca and Medina . ( Or their rulers must be your vassal) .

I do think that the fourth tier system could be quite interesting , and something for players to aim for. BUT , it has to make sense within the context of that time . For " Empires "with no legitimate claim to the " Empire title", there could be a Tier 3.5 allowing you to vassalize Tier 3 Kings . However, there has to be some additional benefits to being in Tier 4 . Things like increased Demense Size , and loyalty bonuses , and less distance penalties might work well .